To what extent did the debates about the Mexican War and its aftermath reflect the sectional interest of New Englanders, westerners, and southerners in the period from 1845 - 1855?
Concerning the period from 1845-1855; the Mexican War reflected sectionalism, excessive concern for local or regional interests rather than the interests of the whole, at its peak. Americans of this time were primarily concerned with gaining lands and spreading democracy. However, they were not concerned with over stepping boundaries and were willing to do whatever it took to achieve their goals (including turning some of the nation against one another).
Prior to the war the South was primarily concerned with the boundary line for Texas and its right to maintain slavery (Kennedy). It was rightfully argued that the United States should not declare war on Mexico without proper cause. On April 25, 1846, such cause became evident. General Zachary Taylor’s command was attacked by Mexican troops crossing the Rio Grande. The results; sixteen Americans dead or wounded (Kennedy). The South was the main supporter of the war, they believed Mexico had threatened war, and was to blame for hostilities. As well, supporters argued Mexico refused to pay damages claimed by U.S citizens and had shed American blood on American soil (Mintz).
The Northern states were primarily opposed to the war and deemed it “an immoral land grab by an expansionistic power against a weak neighbor” (Mintz). As well, they believed that James Polk (president at the time) had initiated the war and to some degree provoked it (Mintz). Those opposing the war also argued that it was an attempt by Southern states to gain more slave states (Mintz).
Those in the Western states were indifferent, with America fighting for territories in the west. States began to pledge allegiance to the United States and after the war those pledges were deemed official.
A direct result of the war was the Gadsden Purchase in 1853, in which the U.S purchased land (present day Arizona) from Mexico (U.S). Following this, in 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Act is passed, which allowed states to decide independently whether or not to allow slavery. As well, the Missouri Compromise was repealed as a direct result of this (U.S).
With the nation debating with one another on matters like; land, slavery, and government, it is clear that sectionalism is prevalent. In the end Americans came out on top and demolished Spain. They gained the lands originally fought over, and maintained the balance between slavery and non-slavery states. Although sectionalism had positive affects in the Mexican War, it would prove to be disastrous as Americans are jolted one step closer to the Civil War.
Concerning the period from 1845-1855; the Mexican War reflected sectionalism, excessive concern for local or regional interests rather than the interests of the whole, at its peak. Americans of this time were primarily concerned with gaining lands and spreading democracy. However, they were not concerned with over stepping boundaries and were willing to do whatever it took to achieve their goals (including turning some of the nation against one another).
Prior to the war the South was primarily concerned with the boundary line for Texas and its right to maintain slavery (Kennedy). It was rightfully argued that the United States should not declare war on Mexico without proper cause. On April 25, 1846, such cause became evident. General Zachary Taylor’s command was attacked by Mexican troops crossing the Rio Grande. The results; sixteen Americans dead or wounded (Kennedy). The South was the main supporter of the war, they believed Mexico had threatened war, and was to blame for hostilities. As well, supporters argued Mexico refused to pay damages claimed by U.S citizens and had shed American blood on American soil (Mintz).
The Northern states were primarily opposed to the war and deemed it “an immoral land grab by an expansionistic power against a weak neighbor” (Mintz). As well, they believed that James Polk (president at the time) had initiated the war and to some degree provoked it (Mintz). Those opposing the war also argued that it was an attempt by Southern states to gain more slave states (Mintz).
Those in the Western states were indifferent, with America fighting for territories in the west. States began to pledge allegiance to the United States and after the war those pledges were deemed official.
A direct result of the war was the Gadsden Purchase in 1853, in which the U.S purchased land (present day Arizona) from Mexico (U.S). Following this, in 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Act is passed, which allowed states to decide independently whether or not to allow slavery. As well, the Missouri Compromise was repealed as a direct result of this (U.S).
With the nation debating with one another on matters like; land, slavery, and government, it is clear that sectionalism is prevalent. In the end Americans came out on top and demolished Spain. They gained the lands originally fought over, and maintained the balance between slavery and non-slavery states. Although sectionalism had positive affects in the Mexican War, it would prove to be disastrous as Americans are jolted one step closer to the Civil War.
Work Cited
Kennedy, David, Lizabeth Cohen, and Thomas Bailey. The American Pagaent. 12th ed. Houghton Mifflin. Print.Mintz, S. "The Mexican War." Digital History. 2007. Web. 15 Feb. 2012.
__http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=316__
Mintz, S. "The Mexican War." Digital History. 2007. Web. 15 Feb. 2012.
__http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=316__
"The U.S.-Mexican War . Interactive Timeline | PBS." PBS: Public Broadcasting Service. KERA, 14 Mar. 2006. Web. 15 Feb. 2012.
__http://www.pbs.org/kera/usmexicanwar/timeline_flash.html__
.